- Thread starter
- #21
If two populations cannot interbreed NATURALLY, they are essentially different species.
Essentially, but not scientifically.
It's kinda late in life for you to learn the difference, huh.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wrong In So Very Many Ways
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Essentially, but not scientifically.
It's kinda late in life for you to learn the difference, huh.
- Thread starter
- #22
Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:
"...GOP being the party of the rich."
I recognize that you are as dumb as asphalt, but you do serve a purpose.....validating my rules #1 and 2.
Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
2a. If not for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.
Now for the facts.
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
- In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
- And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
- And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
- “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
- This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
- As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
- Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
- Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.
- With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
- “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm
Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million
Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles
How thrilled the Left is to have morons like you who have never read a book.
As noted in the link, the most angry, science loathing purveyors of religionism follow an impoverished ideology, one of profound fear and ignorance.
www.americamagazine.org
The Creation Museum is a $27 million example of how Christians can lose their way fighting the culture wars. After spending time there this Christmas, I left convinced that as wrong as the museum’s science is, the most frightening driver of its “logic” is an impoverished theology, which is coupled with a desire to win moral arguments. This toxic combination propels devout people into strange and unnecessary battles with modern science.
Creationism isn’t about science, it’s about theology (and it’s really bad theology)
The Creation Museum is a $27 million example of how Christians can lose their way fighting the culture wars.
www.americamagazine.org
The Creation Museum is a $27 million example of how Christians can lose their way fighting the culture wars. After spending time there this Christmas, I left convinced that as wrong as the museum’s science is, the most frightening driver of its “logic” is an impoverished theology, which is coupled with a desire to win moral arguments. This toxic combination propels devout people into strange and unnecessary battles with modern science.
Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are religiously motivated pseudoscientific notions that threaten the inegrity of science.
lockhaven.edu
There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.
A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by a handful of people who write books aimed at non-scientists. These authors claim that intelligent design is not a religious idea, but the public speeches of some of them reveal that their goal is to get "God back into science and into school classrooms". Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to intelligent design, as perhaps the best they can get—for now.
- Thread starter
- #25
8. The more you know about Darwin’s beliefs, and the history of science, the more one begins to doubt Darwin, and question why it is taught as fact.
“Mendel’s theory of stable factors contradicted Darwin’s theory of changeable gemmules. Thus, although Mendel’s work was published in 1866, Darwinists totally ignored it for more than three decades. William Bateson, one of the scientists who “rediscovered” Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that the cause for this lack of interest was “unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines.... The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended.” Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, p.334. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Jan Sapp, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. Chapters 2–4.
See that part “neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species”? Still true today.
There is no experimental proof of speciation.
Darwin's theory relies on shis 'gemmules,' random changes in the organism that are passes on to successive generations, for speciation.
It was proven untrue a century ago.....yet Darwinism is still taught as proven, factual. Why?
9. Weismann, before 1900, proved that use and disuse was false: “In the experiment, Weismann cut off the tails of 901 mice and their offspring for five generations. If acquired characteristics were heritable, Weismann reasoned, the experimental mice should eventually produce offspring with no tails.” https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/august... Weismann cut,produce offspring with no tails.
“Mendel’s theory of stable factors contradicted Darwin’s theory of changeable gemmules. Thus, although Mendel’s work was published in 1866, Darwinists totally ignored it for more than three decades. William Bateson, one of the scientists who “rediscovered” Mendelian genetics at the turn of the century, wrote that the cause for this lack of interest was “unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines.... The question, it was imagined, had been answered and the debate ended.” Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, p.334. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Jan Sapp, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. Chapters 2–4.
See that part “neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species”? Still true today.
There is no experimental proof of speciation.
Darwin's theory relies on shis 'gemmules,' random changes in the organism that are passes on to successive generations, for speciation.
It was proven untrue a century ago.....yet Darwinism is still taught as proven, factual. Why?
9. Weismann, before 1900, proved that use and disuse was false: “In the experiment, Weismann cut off the tails of 901 mice and their offspring for five generations. If acquired characteristics were heritable, Weismann reasoned, the experimental mice should eventually produce offspring with no tails.” https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/august... Weismann cut,produce offspring with no tails.
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 6,065
- 5,870
- 1,940
Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.
Billionaire George Soros - Democrat, socialist actually
Billionaire John Kerry, by marriage - Democrat and traitor
Billionaire Ted Turner - Democrat former husband of traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda , aren't you proud of her?
Billionaires in Silicon valley - Democrats who censor and are trying to overthrow America
Countless multimillionaires in Hollywood - Far left Democrats, pedophiles, homosexuals, and traitors
Nancy Pelosi - filthy rich Democrat
Michael Bloomberg - filthy rich billionaire Democrat
Yes, lies by Democrats are special, aren't they? Just keep regurgitating them and other sheep will do likewise.
Religionism - wrong in so many ways.
While religionism under the burqa of Christian fundamentalism is an impediment to learning for home skoolur types, aside from a fringe minority of the science loathing, fear and ignorance addled religious extremists, the anti-science Bible thumpers remain quaint throwbacks.
academic.oup.com
Over the past three decades, biologists and then scientists more generally have become increasingly aware of the threat that creationism, in its many guises, poses not only to science but also to rationalism and evidence-based decisionmaking. The intention of “intelligent design” advocates, as revealed in the “wedge” document (www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf), was to replace evolution in science curricula and to recast the sciences generally in a theological framework (Forrest and Gross 2003). The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is the front line in the defense of science.
While religionism under the burqa of Christian fundamentalism is an impediment to learning for home skoolur types, aside from a fringe minority of the science loathing, fear and ignorance addled religious extremists, the anti-science Bible thumpers remain quaint throwbacks.
Why Darwin Was Right and Creationists Are Wrong
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Richard Dawkins. Free Press, 2009. 480 pp., illus. $30.00 (ISBN 9781416594789 cloth).
academic.oup.com
Over the past three decades, biologists and then scientists more generally have become increasingly aware of the threat that creationism, in its many guises, poses not only to science but also to rationalism and evidence-based decisionmaking. The intention of “intelligent design” advocates, as revealed in the “wedge” document (www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf), was to replace evolution in science curricula and to recast the sciences generally in a theological framework (Forrest and Gross 2003). The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is the front line in the defense of science.
Religionism - Wrong In So Very Many Ways
Science and science-based technologies have transformed modern life. They have led to major improvements in living standards, public welfare, health, and security. They have changed how we view the universe and how we think about ourselves in relation to the world around us.
Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.
Science and science-based technologies have transformed modern life. They have led to major improvements in living standards, public welfare, health, and security. They have changed how we view the universe and how we think about ourselves in relation to the world around us.
Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.
Religionism - Wrong In So Very Many Ways
“It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy”
phys.org
For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
“It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy”
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
- Thread starter
- #30
10. Now, as said in the OP, Darwinian evolution lives or dies based on “random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.”
Darwin said “every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation …. gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change.”
Since Weismann proved this wrong, our knowledge of DNA allows that it can be randomly changed, and this happens quite a bit….we call those changes ‘mutations.’
Is Darwin saved???
Nope.
“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals
“Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
(Go to “Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome”)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.
pbio.0050333&ct=1&SESSID=a273f04ca1957b1da05dfd35ba0c418a
Mutations are almost always disadvantageous for the organism......or letal.
Soooo….again we find Darwinism wanting.
Now…..why is it taught as a fact explaining the diversity of life?
The same individuals who trumpet communism, a proven failure, also trumpet Darwinism….also a proven failure.
And…..for the very same reasons. It’s not science......it's their religion.
Darwin said “every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation …. gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change.”
Since Weismann proved this wrong, our knowledge of DNA allows that it can be randomly changed, and this happens quite a bit….we call those changes ‘mutations.’
Is Darwin saved???
Nope.
“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals
“Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
(Go to “Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome”)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.
pbio.0050333&ct=1&SESSID=a273f04ca1957b1da05dfd35ba0c418a
Mutations are almost always disadvantageous for the organism......or letal.
Soooo….again we find Darwinism wanting.
Now…..why is it taught as a fact explaining the diversity of life?
The same individuals who trumpet communism, a proven failure, also trumpet Darwinism….also a proven failure.
And…..for the very same reasons. It’s not science......it's their religion.
I said: Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the richConservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:
"...GOP being the party of the rich."
I recognize that you are as dumb as asphalt, but you do serve a purpose.....validating my rules #1 and 2.
Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
2a. If not for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.
Now for the facts.
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
View attachment 370190
Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
- In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
- And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
- And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
- “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
- This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
- As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
- Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
- Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.
Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:
- With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
- “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm
Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million
Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles
How thrilled the Left is to have morons like you who have never read a book.
You replied: In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,”
Thank you for the confirmation. Are you so busy reading books that you don't bother to read your own posts?
You and PoliticalChic seem to suffer from the same lack of reading comprehension skills.Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.
Billionaire George Soros - Democrat, socialist actually
Billionaire John Kerry, by marriage - Democrat and traitor
Billionaire Ted Turner - Democrat former husband of traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda , aren't you proud of her?
Billionaires in Silicon valley - Democrats who censor and are trying to overthrow America
Countless multimillionaires in Hollywood - Far left Democrats, pedophiles, homosexuals, and traitors
Nancy Pelosi - filthy rich Democrat
Michael Bloomberg - filthy rich billionaire Democrat
Yes, lies by Democrats are special, aren't they? Just keep regurgitating them and other sheep will do likewise.
- Thread starter
- #33
I said: Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the richConservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:
"...GOP being the party of the rich."
I recognize that you are as dumb as asphalt, but you do serve a purpose.....validating my rules #1 and 2.
Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
2a. If not for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.
Now for the facts.
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
View attachment 370190
Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
- In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
- And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
- And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
- “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
- This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
- As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
- Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
- Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.
Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:
- With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
- “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm
Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million
Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles
How thrilled the Left is to have morons like you who have never read a book.
You replied: In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,”
Thank you for the confirmation. Are you so busy reading books that you don't bother to read your own posts?
I put you in your place again.
Why should that be a problem?
- Thread starter
- #34
You and PoliticalChic seem to suffer from the same lack of reading comprehension skills.Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.
Billionaire George Soros - Democrat, socialist actually
Billionaire John Kerry, by marriage - Democrat and traitor
Billionaire Ted Turner - Democrat former husband of traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda , aren't you proud of her?
Billionaires in Silicon valley - Democrats who censor and are trying to overthrow America
Countless multimillionaires in Hollywood - Far left Democrats, pedophiles, homosexuals, and traitors
Nancy Pelosi - filthy rich Democrat
Michael Bloomberg - filthy rich billionaire Democrat
Yes, lies by Democrats are special, aren't they? Just keep regurgitating them and other sheep will do likewise.
And another example of
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
In fact, I have a lot of respect for The Flat Earth Society because they sardonically illustrate a fundamental flaw in our scientific education.
It's a flaw that allows people like creationists and other pseudo-science proponents to exist.
The flaw is, we, as humans, tend to accept principles as true, even if we don't fundamentally understand them, because that is what we were taught.
The Flat Earther's choose for their object lesson, the nature of the shape of The Earth. Everyone knows the Earth is round, but how many people (precious few it turns out) can actually explain WHY we know it's round (or, more accurately, a spheroid)? It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry, but it's not an easily reproducible experiment.
Even people who have spent a life teaching and working in science would be hard put to accurately explain the proof of what nearly every person on Earth takes as gospel truth. The round shape of The Earth.
Flat Earthers, quite rightly, insist that if you believe something, even something that is true, without knowing why you believe it, it's no different from superstition.
The Earth IS flat, locally ... ha ha ha ... we can plat a small town on a flat piece of paper and that's accurate enough, the few millimeter bulge in the center is safety ignored when calculating property taxes ... the orbits of Venus and beyond are easily and correctly calculated assuming the passage of time is absolute ... time trivially dilates at these speeds ... Newton reigns supreme in our day-to-day activities ...
It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry
I think you mean non-Cartesian geometry here ... our system of latitude and longitude appears to be casting a sphere as a manifold, but in truth it's spherical coordinates just ignoring the radius coordinate, r = 3000 miles at all points on the surface ... so that our first derivative degenerates into a two dimensional function ... which is a Euclidean space still ... shear transforms work great, we're just shearing through angles instead of straight lines ...
Yes ... in science we sometimes must tell our students to believe in something without explanation ... not that we can't explain, just we can't explain it so the student understands ... that understanding must come later in the curriculum ...
Let's take the example of explaining why the Earth is the shape it is to PoliticalChic ... it will take me an hour lecture just to teach her what a vector is, a full week's worth of lecture to explain how to add vectors ... assuming she's completed a year's course in trigonometry, because I need that year to teach her basic integral calculus and how to form our work equations ... then and only then can I begin to explain why the Earth is an oblate spheroid ... so much easier to ask her to believe this fact on faith because all she wants to know is why the damn county is re-writing the legal description of her real estate ...
Of course, she won't ... a weak and lazy mind just screams "DemoNazis" and she has the answer she wants ...
For the record ... the "tree of life" diagram is in error, the rats should be placed above humans ... we try to put the more highly evolved and advanced species higher in the order of things ... just saying ... we don't place cyanobacteria above birds, so why put humans above rodents? ...
The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect
Pray tell ... what scientific theory do you base this claim on ... if Darwin was incorrect, then what is the explanation? ...
In your ignorance, you failed to bring up the Hawthorns as an obvious counter-example to our 18th Century definition of "species" ... in the 21st Century, we use cladistics where the domesticated dog and the grey wolf are considered "sister taxon", not necessarily different species ... this allows biologists when communicating with each other to use terms like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus without all the blood involved in splitting hares ... Lepus callotis bugsbunnyi ...
- Thread starter
- #36
In fact, I have a lot of respect for The Flat Earth Society because they sardonically illustrate a fundamental flaw in our scientific education.
It's a flaw that allows people like creationists and other pseudo-science proponents to exist.
The flaw is, we, as humans, tend to accept principles as true, even if we don't fundamentally understand them, because that is what we were taught.
The Flat Earther's choose for their object lesson, the nature of the shape of The Earth. Everyone knows the Earth is round, but how many people (precious few it turns out) can actually explain WHY we know it's round (or, more accurately, a spheroid)? It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry, but it's not an easily reproducible experiment.
Even people who have spent a life teaching and working in science would be hard put to accurately explain the proof of what nearly every person on Earth takes as gospel truth. The round shape of The Earth.
Flat Earthers, quite rightly, insist that if you believe something, even something that is true, without knowing why you believe it, it's no different from superstition.
The Earth IS flat, locally ... ha ha ha ... we can plat a small town on a flat piece of paper and that's accurate enough, the few millimeter bulge in the center is safety ignored when calculating property taxes ... the orbits of Venus and beyond are easily and correctly calculated assuming the passage of time is absolute ... time trivially dilates at these speeds ... Newton reigns supreme in our day-to-day activities ...
It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry
I think you mean non-Cartesian geometry here ... our system of latitude and longitude appears to be casting a sphere as a manifold, but in truth it's spherical coordinates just ignoring the radius coordinate, r = 3000 miles at all points on the surface ... so that our first derivative degenerates into a two dimensional function ... which is a Euclidean space still ... shear transforms work great, we're just shearing through angles instead of straight lines ...
Yes ... in science we sometimes must tell our students to believe in something without explanation ... not that we can't explain, just we can't explain it so the student understands ... that understanding must come later in the curriculum ...
Let's take the example of explaining why the Earth is the shape it is to PoliticalChic ... it will take me an hour lecture just to teach her what a vector is, a full week's worth of lecture to explain how to add vectors ... assuming she's completed a year's course in trigonometry, because I need that year to teach her basic integral calculus and how to form our work equations ... then and only then can I begin to explain why the Earth is an oblate spheroid ... so much easier to ask her to believe this fact on faith because all she wants to know is why the damn county is re-writing the legal description of her real estate ...
Of course, she won't ... a weak and lazy mind just screams "DemoNazis" and she has the answer she wants ...
For the record ... the "tree of life" diagram is in error, the rats should be placed above humans ... we try to put the more highly evolved and advanced species higher in the order of things ... just saying ... we don't place cyanobacteria above birds, so why put humans above rodents? ...
The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect
Pray tell ... what scientific theory do you base this claim on ... if Darwin was incorrect, then what is the explanation? ...
In your ignorance, you failed to bring up the Hawthorns as an obvious counter-example to our 18th Century definition of "species" ... in the 21st Century, we use cladistics where the domesticated dog and the grey wolf are considered "sister taxon", not necessarily different species ... this allows biologists when communicating with each other to use terms like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus without all the blood involved in splitting hares ... Lepus callotis bugsbunnyi ...
Get lost, you lying low-life.
In fact, I have a lot of respect for The Flat Earth Society because they sardonically illustrate a fundamental flaw in our scientific education.
It's a flaw that allows people like creationists and other pseudo-science proponents to exist.
The flaw is, we, as humans, tend to accept principles as true, even if we don't fundamentally understand them, because that is what we were taught.
The Flat Earther's choose for their object lesson, the nature of the shape of The Earth. Everyone knows the Earth is round, but how many people (precious few it turns out) can actually explain WHY we know it's round (or, more accurately, a spheroid)? It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry, but it's not an easily reproducible experiment.
Even people who have spent a life teaching and working in science would be hard put to accurately explain the proof of what nearly every person on Earth takes as gospel truth. The round shape of The Earth.
Flat Earthers, quite rightly, insist that if you believe something, even something that is true, without knowing why you believe it, it's no different from superstition.
The Earth IS flat, locally ... ha ha ha ... we can plat a small town on a flat piece of paper and that's accurate enough, the few millimeter bulge in the center is safety ignored when calculating property taxes ... the orbits of Venus and beyond are easily and correctly calculated assuming the passage of time is absolute ... time trivially dilates at these speeds ... Newton reigns supreme in our day-to-day activities ...
It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry
I think you mean non-Cartesian geometry here ... our system of latitude and longitude appears to be casting a sphere as a manifold, but in truth it's spherical coordinates just ignoring the radius coordinate, r = 3000 miles at all points on the surface ... so that our first derivative degenerates into a two dimensional function ... which is a Euclidean space still ... shear transforms work great, we're just shearing through angles instead of straight lines ...
Yes ... in science we sometimes must tell our students to believe in something without explanation ... not that we can't explain, just we can't explain it so the student understands ... that understanding must come later in the curriculum ...
Let's take the example of explaining why the Earth is the shape it is to PoliticalChic ... it will take me an hour lecture just to teach her what a vector is, a full week's worth of lecture to explain how to add vectors ... assuming she's completed a year's course in trigonometry, because I need that year to teach her basic integral calculus and how to form our work equations ... then and only then can I begin to explain why the Earth is an oblate spheroid ... so much easier to ask her to believe this fact on faith because all she wants to know is why the damn county is re-writing the legal description of her real estate ...
Of course, she won't ... a weak and lazy mind just screams "DemoNazis" and she has the answer she wants ...
For the record ... the "tree of life" diagram is in error, the rats should be placed above humans ... we try to put the more highly evolved and advanced species higher in the order of things ... just saying ... we don't place cyanobacteria above birds, so why put humans above rodents? ...
The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect
Pray tell ... what scientific theory do you base this claim on ... if Darwin was incorrect, then what is the explanation? ...
In your ignorance, you failed to bring up the Hawthorns as an obvious counter-example to our 18th Century definition of "species" ... in the 21st Century, we use cladistics where the domesticated dog and the grey wolf are considered "sister taxon", not necessarily different species ... this allows biologists when communicating with each other to use terms like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus without all the blood involved in splitting hares ... Lepus callotis bugsbunnyi ...
Get lost, you lying low-life.
“Get lost, you lying low-life.”
Religionism - Such Angry Self-Haters In So Very Many Ways
Religionism - Wrong In So Very Many Ways
www.cnn.com
The graduate student, Laura van Holstein, was able to prove this using a tool Darwin didn't have: Data modeling.
"I've just reported evidence in favor of a hunch of good old Darwin's," van Holstein, a biological anthropology PhD student at Cambridge and study lead author, told CNN. "I think this has big implications for evolutionary biology."
Interestingly, a poster in the comment section with the name “Political Chic” responded with “You Poop Head”. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
A PhD student proved one of Darwin's theories of evolution 140 years after his death | CNN
Considering the relationship between the number of species and subspecies in a genus -- and how subspecies are earlier versions of species -- could lead scientists to think differently, Cambridge PhD student Laura van Holstein said.
www.cnn.com
The graduate student, Laura van Holstein, was able to prove this using a tool Darwin didn't have: Data modeling.
"I've just reported evidence in favor of a hunch of good old Darwin's," van Holstein, a biological anthropology PhD student at Cambridge and study lead author, told CNN. "I think this has big implications for evolutionary biology."
Interestingly, a poster in the comment section with the name “Political Chic” responded with “You Poop Head”. Of course, I could be wrong about that.
You really do have a problem with the English language. You didn't put me in my place, you said I was 100% correct. Thanks for the admission.I said: Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the richConservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:
"...GOP being the party of the rich."
I recognize that you are as dumb as asphalt, but you do serve a purpose.....validating my rules #1 and 2.
Rule #1
Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.
2a. If not for double standards Liberals would have no standards at all.
Now for the facts.
“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
View attachment 370190
Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
- In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
- And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
- And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
- “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
- This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
- As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
- Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
- Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.
Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:
- With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
- “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm
Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million
Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles
How thrilled the Left is to have morons like you who have never read a book.
You replied: In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,”
Thank you for the confirmation. Are you so busy reading books that you don't bother to read your own posts?
I put you in your place again.
Why should that be a problem?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 912
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 210
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 57
- Views
- 221
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 298
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 352
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-